User talk:EmphasisMine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Matt Messias

Hi. Thanks for the B, and the constructive comments left at the article talk page. I have tried to clarify parts of your critique on that page, so that those viewing the page in the future might see both our viewpoints.

With regard to the "timeline" nature of the prosaic structure, that is more than likely to occur in articles about sports officials due to the multi-level system which prevails in their quest for promotion "up the ladder" towards the World Cup Final appointment which every referee dreams of, but few achieve. I believe that to overly 'shuffle the pack' would be to cause confusion, rather than relay the information in an effective manner, and quite simply end up looking a mess. Nevertheless, I have been into the article and combined some of the paragraphs, as you suggested, and am satisfied with the improvement for myself.

The match scorelines and scorers are an admitted trivia in comparison to the important achievements which form the core of the Matt Messias article. They do retain some relevancy to what is being recounted. However, trivia in sections has been avoided, and the extra touches are usually included in referee articles as points of interest, and in helping the reader to perhaps recall some of the incidents alluded to. They also seem to please some of the "statisticians" out there (one or two articles are heaving unnecessarily with statistics, and I would one day like to devote a bit of time to removing the rafts of figures and trivial inserts which are spoiling them (e.g. Howard Webb).

I further feel that referee articles would appear very flat and monotonous without the embellishments. However, should any editor feel the opposite, they will treat the article accordingly I expect. Unfortunately, a particular quirk of the referees' job is that, while observers and critics are intensely interested in any faux pas and negativity which might befall them, or indeed more minor controversial episodes, they are not at all interested in delving deeper into the positive aspects of the subject's life i.e. family, hobbies, sometimes even what their other paid employment is. All this makes it tough to create a balanced article such as that accorded to a 'hero' instead of an 'anti-hero', and often the real story is only uncovered when auto/biographies are published, usually after their retirement. I often joke to my colleagues that referees have to pass infamy guidelines, not notability!

Best wishes, and thanks once again. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And I have now clarified the context in which the "Messias" translation is included - see this diff. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Sometimes you are wright! Sometimes I am rihgt!

Sometimes we are wright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.46.129 (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesus.

The anonymous user has begun trolling (or so it seems) concerning the whole "Iaso" business. I've checked the sources he claims, and demonstrated numerous times how he's making connections where there are none, and developing his own theory- hence, original research. I don't want to drag you into it (although you did leave a comment willingly), as the whole thing is a mess to read, but honestly, I feel like I need some support just to be assured that I'm not insane, here. I suppose the time is nearing when the anon should just be ignored, but I'm not one to intentionally drop business, and I typically take the opportunity to have the last word, especially when one is spouting nonsense.--C.Logan 02:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there really no warning template for persistent promotion of original research? Adding original syntheses of evidence for views that aren't notable in the first place really ought to be leading this anonymous IP on the road to being blocked, but I'm not certain how to proceed. Any ideas? It seems, once again, the Wikipedia procedures aren't very well matched to this kind of issue. Please see what I've added at User talk:72.186.213.96. We need as many distinct good-faith editors as possible adding further warnings under this heading as often as Anonymous junks up Iaso. And we need as many good-faith editors as possible watching Iaso so that it can be kept clean without three-revert situations. Wareh 21:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your involvement. As you can see, he or she seems to ignore your rather clear and fair explanation and persists with the nonsense. There doesn't seem to be a sufficient variety of warnings for this type of disruption, which is unusual (there should certainly be, at least, a template warning for general incivility, rather than personal attacks specifically).--C.Logan 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

EALacey, No apologies needed. I think this person has been so resistant to engaging in discussion that further talk page posts can be removed--unless, that is, that s/he starts bringing forward good sources and stops relying on original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

how D partner?

you should see the passion if you haven't lately. I have offspring and I do occasional serious edits 23:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

what?

i never touched the x factor page i dont even like x factor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.91.239 (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Horace Odes & J. Michie

If you're still interested in Horace you might like to read my remarks on this topic. All the best. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 19:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nero comments

Thanks for your input -- outside opinion is greatly appreciated. The only issue I have is still with the damnatio -- I have two references (one from an academic journal) stating that he was declared damnatio. However, we could probably temper it by mentioning that it wasn't exactly enforced by Otho.

Might I ask a favor. Once the page is unprotected, would YOU mind implenting the changes you suggested. I would do it myself but Hoshi has a habit of wholescale reverting anything I put in, even cited text. I think changes placed in by a third party observer would be less likely to trigger an edit war.

Best regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 14:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Additions to intro

I like your additions to the intro as they've balanced the rather unique slant on Nero's rule presented there. Unfortunately, it looks like they've been unilaterally reverted by Hoshidoshi, and reverted again after I replaced it. If you have any additional input on some compromise solution, it would be appreciated. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

re Alfred Edward Housman

Hi. I looked over your revert today, and gave the matter some thought. The section that was removed, which you undid, does give me some misgivings; Firstly, it is sub titled synopsis, and secondly there are no sources or references given. Also, the section appears to be much more discussive than the rest of the article - in fact I think it resembles a dissertion. Under the circumstances and applying AGF I think it possible that the anon ip was removing original research. I wonder if you would be willing to look over that section again, compare it against a prior version, and consider whether it should in fact be excised. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will look into the article history and see what preceded the "synopsis" section. If it is suitable, even if "stubby", I will substitute it. Please feel free to review and amend me, or disagree before I start (it won't be immediately!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Beat me to it! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am the author of the Shropshire Lad synopsis. I know that you first reinstated it after an anonymous editor removed it, have thought about whether to delete it, and have acted in good faith. However it would be better, if you think it should go, to follow normal procedure for so large an edit and raise the matter in discussion (and, not with a guillotine deadline in your favour) on the Article Discussion Page. That is the normal procedure for courtesy and good manners between editors in WP, as you, an editor of 2 years standing, probably know. The source for the synopsis is, like any literary work article, the work itself, and the themes are presented in sequence as they appear in the poems. Hence it is quite justifiable as encyclopedic content, and is not Original Research any more than any reading of any literary work. I'm quite happy to discuss this more, and would have been happy before, but I am not happy that you and the guy above have made this major deletion without consulting in the usual way, and preferably contacting me as the contributing editor. So I have reinstated it now give you the opportunity to present your case. Hope we can sort this out, I am here most days and am not unreasonable Eebahgum (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I read your piece on the talk page (LesssHeard has also added now) and I do understand your misgivings about the continuity question. Indeed if you had asked me three months ago I would have shared your view completely, and can only say that it was the process of extracting the synopsis that led me to the conclusion that there was, at least, a themed narrative of a diffuse and allegorical nature. Anyhow, I don't want to lay down the law in any way at all. I do think a synopsis of some sort was needed, and I'll be very interested to hear your reactions to my reply. I may also attempt a brief introductory statement of the kind I suggest so you can see what I have in mind, of course revertible/able (aaagh) if you want to follow some other course. Do look at Winterreise. Very best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Posh

Thanks, I think that your edits have been very helpful. Currently swamped by life, at the moment, but I will try to look at Port Out, Starboard Home and give it the boost that it deserves. Cheers. Howfar (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Political Parties..?

A (very) draft discussion on the policy on political parties has been started by me here - User:Doktorbuk/pp. If you can assist with this discussion, or know how to help me get this policy looked at, advanced, and accepted by the larger Wiki community, please let me know. Many thanks doktorb _words^deeds 19:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Conscript Fathers

I just wrote a new article on Conscript Fathers. It has to do with members of the ancient Roman Senate. Since it looks like you are quite familar with the topic perhaps you could look it over and tweak the article as necessary if you have time. Thanks. --Doug ^talk 18:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Simon Hoggart's affair with Kimberley Quinn

You may wish to comment on the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Simon_Hoggart SilkTork *^YES! 11:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Philip Larkin

Prompted by your addition of a link to the English Librarians category, I realised that the PL article makes only passing reference to his work as a librarian; usually it is mentioned in terms of its impact on his writing. If one was wondering if there was something instrinsically notable about his activities as a librarian, would you be the right person to ask about this? If not, would you be able to guide me either to someone who might be able to help, or to the best forum for asking the question? Thank you, almost-instinct 10:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the excellent article. I've put a link to it into the PL page and placed a question with the Wikiproject Librarian talk page, to see if any of them has an opinion as to what in that article would be notable. If none of them take the bait I'll try to do it myself. almost-instinct 22:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
ps congrats on being only the second person to recognise the allusion ;-)

Abuse

Can you please advise how to have someone banned from Wikipedia? "UBS Fixer" repeatedly slanders pages. Please let me know at your earliest convenience. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.233 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, the user who was impersonating you in Oct 2007 as EAGacey seems to be back with an IP address now. Please see: User_talk:Hersfold under vandal user. Just fyi in case he shows up again. Cheers History2007 (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Request

Hi EALacey,

Just wanted to make you aware of our request posted to "Ultraexactzz" for speedy deletion on the Robert Wolf (UBS) page. Please see below.

"Our reason for a speedy deletion request is due to constant attacks and vandalism by UnionBS (aka UBSFixer). Since there is no other remedy to stop this particular person's attacks and constant edits, we request that you please remove the "Robert Wolf (UBS)" page and any other page created referencing the investment banker Robert Wolf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.233 (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)"

R. Joseph Hoffmann - delete?

I noted that you have worked on the R. Joseph Hoffmann article. This article seems to be a vanity piece. On the talk page, Hoffmann himself acknowledges that it is being edited by his associates. We've got loads of stuff about how wonderful he is.

But the last time I looked at this, it linked to some rather more critical pieces. In particular I have the academic reviews of his Celsus online, which I linked from the article. One is nothing, the other states that he has dishonestly translated the stuff. Both the links and my summary of the reception of his work quietly got edited off the page.

I don't claim to be much of a Wikipedian. But there must be a way to deal with this situation. Do you have any suggestions?

My own thought is to see if Hoffmann (or his stooge) deletes the material I have just readded again. If he does, perhaps the article should just be deleted as a piece of self-promotion by this (frankly) very minor scholar. Any thoughts? I don't know how one proposes an article for this, but it pains me to see this chap promoting himself this nakedly. Roger Pearse 10:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your kind comment, and kind words. Glad *you* are looking at it, as I might not be considered a neutral person by him and his (which would defeat the object) since I reviewed his Celsus online. I'll keep an eye on the article too, and we can talk again. Roger Pearse 14:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

I've today written a call for help on the biographies of living persons noticeboard, as I see the reverts of review info are still going on. We can't really have a situation where only stuff that makes Hoffmann look important can be added, can we? Roger Pearse 12:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

Gail Trimble

Hi - I've nominated the article for DYK - Template talk:Did you know#Gail Trimble - what do you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Terminal emulators

If I've read it correctly, you added "Free network-related software" to Category:Free terminal emulators but did not add the corresponding "Network-related software" category to Category:Terminal emulators. Curious why the difference? Thanks, 69.106.246.15 (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Where Troy Once Stood

Hello, EALacey, did you intend to write "[e]ver" this way ? Could you maybe rewrite the phrase? Thank you,--Antiphus (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already taken care of it, cheers--Antiphus (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sophocles GAR notice

Sophocles has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate

Hi there: I don't think you remember our interaction, which was almost a year ago, on the reference desk, but something's come of it and I wanted to ask your advice. I made a claim at the reference desk (which I had read in numerous books and on numerous web sites over the years) regarding the historical objections to Christianity--specifically, I said that people had once doubted the existence of Pontius Pilate, and that atheists had used it to "prove" Jesus never existed until they were proven wrong. You said you'd seen this claim inserted in the Pilate article, but had never had any proof of it, and wanted me to provide a source. Well, I roamed all over the web, seeing this claim again and again on Christian websites, never sourced. I finally found a New Testament scholar who was willing to talk to me. He was sure the claim was true but couldn't remember which atheist writings in particular made such a claim, so he referred me to two experts in the field.

Well, it turns out, the claim is false. According to professors whose expertise in the field is pretty solid, no writer ever claimed that Pilate did not exist, and the claim that atheists once believed it is absolutely spurious. The professor willing to stick his neck out on this one is a very credible authority, I think: Thomas Schirrmacher. I have three emails from him--one in which he says that he and his colleagues conferred and are sure it's a falsehood, a follow-up in which he tells me I am free to quote him on that as the authority, and a further follow-up offering a citation of a German article that makes the claim directly. Here's my question. The Pilate article doesn't currently contain this spurious claim (or even mention it). Should the Pilate article specifically "debunk" this idea (if so, in which section)? Or is there another article that would be a better place to raise the issue? Or is this not the job of Wikipedia to correct other websites' misinformation? (Maybe we should leave it to Snopes, I don't know.) And if we do present the information, should we just use the German citation I was given, or should we also cite the opinion of Schirrmacher (but if so, are we using "original research"?)?

Sorry to dump this in your lap first, but you were the person who inspired me to look into this. It's been a while since I was active here (though I was once very active), and I want to make sure to confer with at least one current editor before I barge around and stir things up. I know this claim will be unwelcome to some of my co-religionists, and I want to make sure we've made the best possible decision so that everyone can agree, in the end, that we did what was best.

Okay, this is too long, I suppose. :-) Thanks for getting me to do something useful for Wikipedia (it admittedly only took me 11 months to get this put together!), and I look forward to hearing what you have to say! Jwrosenzweig (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Bodleian

Belated thanks for replies on talk and contribs. (Actually just was checking the page for the first time in ages...) The user you replied to sounds unlike any Oxford student - undergrad or overseas visitor - I have ever encountered! (As in, the quality of intellect is suspect, if that's the right way to put it.) I wonder if that whole section of the talk page should go away but do not know how this happens, as have never had cause to seriously consider it. It really shouldn't be there, and is, as user says, all POV basically! Cheers anyway. :o) --gobears87 (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Roman inquires

Your input would be appreciated at

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#How many official Dictators to time of Roman Empire
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#"lex Junia Licinia"

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

links

If you like, put in the dead link template. That way the bot fills in the archived link. If you delete the material, rather than use the dead link template, the bot cannot do its job. It is for that reason that the deletion of non-current links is deprecated.

See Wikipedia:Linkrot for starters.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work on finding that new source! BTW, I had mistakenly written 89 as start year for the consultancy agency, which I believe led to mis-order on chronology which I addressed. Tell me if you have a diff view. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I may have been the one confused here. I changed 1989 to 1998 based on the Faraday profile, but other sources give an earlier date. I'll put a note on Talk:Nicholas Beale. EALacey (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded there. On a related point, is there anything more worth reflecting in the article on Lexis/Nexis? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Drown (disambiguation)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drown (disambiguation) for a Merge proposal. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Input on Christ Myth theory

I remember that your suggest changes helped in cleaning up the Christ myth theory and was wondering if you had any more ideas of late on the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, but unfortunately I don't have much time to contribute to Wikipedia at the moment, and that article has a very large volume of debate I'd need to catch up on before I'd be able to make a useful contribution. So I'm afraid I'll have to sit it out for the moment. EALacey (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that as your User:EALacey/Jesus_myth_hypothesis page was one of the best things that ever happened to that article. Right now we are trying to fine detail the definition without getting into the whole fringe not-fringe nonsense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hill Philipp & Associates Corp.

Good research! I have noticed a very odd thing about this hoax. Four IPs contributed to it, adding text, removing PRODs or db tags, adding HPAC to lists of banks:

• 80.190.200.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.2.182.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 87.236.194.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.113.145.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

All four have also edited the article Bodo Sperling or its talk page, or added Sperling to lists, or joined in a BLP/N discussion about him. I have no idea what to make of that: his bio doesn't read as though making up a fake bank as a "conceptual art" project would be his style, but I have difficulty thinking of another explanation. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Religious text primary

A TFD has been opened on Template:Religious text primary. The TfD was opened on 2 December; so is due to close in two days time. Notification being sent to all participants in the previous discussion Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_30#Template:BibleAsFact. Jheald (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Otium

Could you look over this article I started and have been making many improvements to. I am trying to upgrade this in the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome to a B-Class and Mid-importance. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2